When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American
foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter, not me, who has made
the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then
they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for
themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished
reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are
being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be
almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced
position between Israel and Palestine."

April 27, 2007

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel told an Arab-American audience that his support for Israel was not "automatic." Hagel (R-Neb.), who is considering a run for the presidency, told the Arab American Institute's annual dinner that he believes Israel and the United States have a "special relationship," but resented being told by a pro-Israel activist that if he wants backing from the pro-Israel community, his support for Israel should be "automatic."

"First, I am an American senator," Hagel told the AAI audience in Washington on Wednesday, to applause. He also said he would not sacrifice his friendships in the Arab world to please pro-Israel groups.

"No relationship should be founded on holding hostage other relationships," Hagel said. "Why can't I have that relationship" with Israel and its allies "not at the expense of my friends in the Arab world, in the Muslim world? Why must it be a choice? It is not a choice."

April 26, 2007

The Supreme Court’s ruling last week on the so-called “Partial Birth Abortion” ban was a clear signal that President Bush’s anti-choice stacking of the Court has, for the moment, succeeded. The decision was based on a challenge to nearly identical legislation struck down by the Court only a few years earlier. But, since that time, Justice O’Connor retired and President Bush and a Republican Senate replaced her with a reliably anti-choice vote on the Court.

It may be the president’s prerogative to pack the Court, but then it is equally the duty and obligation of Congress to stand for protecting women’s rights. My “Freedom of Choice Act,” introduced last week with Senator Barbara Boxer (CA), would for the first time, codify the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by Roe v. Wade. It would bar government - at any level - from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy. It recognizes that medical doctors – and not politicians – should be the ones who determine what is or is not medically appropriate.

Many lawmakers say they support Roe v. Wade. My bill is a binding codification of that decision. It is time for members to step up to the plate and go on record in support of legislation that will provide meaningful protection for women. The Freedom of Choice Act will ensure that women will able to make personal medical decisions safely, legally and privately.

Congressman Nadler is the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

See here for the complete transcript from the Congressional Record. From Rep. Ackerman of NY:

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

To my good friend from California, as well as my good friend from Ohio, I would address the following observations and concerns. First, I would like to thank each of them for their support for this resolution condemning Hezbollah for their actions.

But I would like to note for the record that there is a tremendous difference between a perpetrator and a victim. A perpetrator is the one who initiates the act. The victim is the one who is victimized by the act. Very often, in an act of violence, murder, mayhem, the victim fights back.

April 23, 2007

My apologies for the following error in a previous blog posting and an action alert email we sent out.

I wrote that the late term abortion ban does not offer protections for the life and health of the mother. While I was correct in asserting that the ban does NOT offer "health of the mother" protections -- and a strong case can be made that this put's a woman's life in danger -- the Washington Post reports the following: "It [the ban] does, however, provide an exception to save the woman's life."

April 19, 2007

As NJDC Blog readers are undoubtedly aware, the Supreme Court launched an assault on choice yesterday, upholding legislation which bans third trimester abortions without offering protections for the life and health of the mother. Both of Bush's new right wing justices voted for the ban (in a 5-4 decision).

Democratic presidential candidates have been strong in voicing objections to this effort to undermine a woman's right to choose. "Democratic candidates uniformly deplored the 5-4 ruling in which the court said the 2003 ban does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion," reported the AP.

April 17, 2007

Hear that silence? That's Republican party leaders refusing to say a peep about Bob Traitor Novak's repeated bashing of Israel. Where is the outrage from the right? Are Republican politicians afraid to stand up to Grumpy Bob?

In a release yesterday, NJDC called out GOPers for their silence on this matter. You know, the same people who hem and haw whenever anyone who has ever been in the same room as a Democrat says something remotely questionable on Israel.